MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, 200 Renfield Street, Glasgow, G2 3QB, UK.
What Works Scotland, Glasgow, UK.
BMC Public Health. 2018 Jul 3;18(1):822. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5735-8.
Participatory budgeting (PB), citizens deliberating among themselves and with officials to decide how to allocate funds for public goods, has been increasingly implemented across Europe and worldwide. While PB is recommended as good practice by the World Bank and the United Nations, with potential to improve health and wellbeing, it is unclear what evaluations have been conducted on the impact of PB on health and wellbeing.
For this scoping review, we searched 21 databases with no restrictions on publication date or language. The search term 'participatory budget' was used as the relevant global label for the intervention of interest. Studies were included if they reported original analysis of health, social, political, or economic and budgetary outcomes of PB. We examined the study design, analysis, outcomes and location of included articles. Findings are reported narratively.
From 1458 identified references, 37 studies were included. The majority of evaluations (n = 24) were of PB in South America, seven were in Europe. Most evaluations were case studies (n = 23) conducting ethnography and surveys, focussing on political outcomes such as participation in PB or impacts on political activities. All of the quantitative observational studies analysing population level data, except one in Russia, were conducted in South America.
Despite increasing interest in PB, evaluations applying robust methods to analyse health and wellbeing outcomes are scarce, particularly beyond Brazil. Therefore, implementation of PB schemes should be accompanied by rigorous qualitative and quantitative evaluation to identify impacts and the processes by which they are realised.
参与式预算（PB），即公民自行审议并与官员一起决定如何分配公共资金用于公共产品，已在欧洲和全球范围内得到越来越多的实施。虽然世界银行和联合国推荐 PB 作为一种良好的实践做法，认为其具有改善健康和福利的潜力，但尚不清楚对 PB 对健康和福利的影响进行了哪些评估。
在这项范围综述中，我们在 21 个数据库中进行了搜索，没有对发表日期或语言进行任何限制。使用“参与式预算”作为干预措施的全球标签。如果研究报告了 PB 在健康、社会、政治或经济和预算结果方面的原始分析，则将其纳入研究。我们检查了纳入文章的研究设计、分析、结果和地点。研究结果以叙述方式报告。
从 1458 篇已确定的参考文献中，有 37 项研究被纳入。大多数评估（n=24）来自南美洲的 PB，7 项来自欧洲。大多数评估是案例研究（n=23），进行民族志和调查，重点关注参与 PB 或对政治活动的影响等政治成果。除了俄罗斯的一项研究外，所有分析人口水平数据的定量观察性研究都在南美洲进行。
尽管对 PB 的兴趣日益增加，但应用严格方法分析健康和福利结果的评估却很少，尤其是在巴西以外的地区。因此，实施 PB 计划应伴随着严格的定性和定量评估，以确定其影响及其实现的过程。
